Recently, telescopic front suspension forks have dominated suspension systems for two-wheeled vehicles. A telescopic fork includes sliding stantions connected in a steerable manner to a cycle frame, and at the same time, includes a telescoping mechanism for wheel displacement. Sliding stantions require very tight manufacturing tolerances, so expensive round centerless ground stantions are almost always used in high performance telescopic forks. Outer surfaces of the stantion typically slide against bushings to allow for compliance, and in many designs, the inner surfaces of the stantions slide against a damper or air spring piston to absorb shocks.
Front suspension for a cycle is subject to large bending forces fore and aft and less significant lateral forces. The round stantions in a telescopic fork must be sized to support the greatest loads, in the fore/aft direction. This requires the use of large diameter stantions. The larger the stantions, the greater the area of the supporting bushings and sliding surfaces. Because of the stacked layout, multiple redundant sliding surfaces must be used to seal in damping fluid and air, as well as provide ample structural support.
Because telescopic forks have relatively large stantions, and relatively large siding surfaces and seals, large breakaway friction in the system (known as stiction) is generated by these components. Stiction resists compression of the suspension in reaction to bumps, which is a drawback in a suspension product where the goal is to react to road or terrain conditions, for example by deflecting in response to ground conditions, and/or absorbing impact from bumps. Additionally, as the telescopic fork is loaded in the fore/aft direction (usually on impact or braking), the bushings bind, resulting in even greater stiction at the exact moment when a rider needs the most compliance.
The higher the fore/aft load on the telescopic fork, the less effective the telescopic fork is at absorbing bumps. Most modern telescopic forks for cycles and motorcycles exhibit around 130 Newtons of stiction at their best, and thousands of Newtons of stiction when exposed to fore/aft loads.
Additionally, in the telescopic fork, mechanical trail is constrained by steering axis (head tube) angle and fork offset, a term for the perpendicular distance between the wheel rotation axis and the steering axis. Another problem with telescopic fork architecture is that when they are installed, mechanical trail reduces as the suspension is compressed, which reduces stability. When mechanical trail reduces, as the suspension compresses, less torque is required to steer the front wheel, causing a feeling of instability. This instability is a flaw in the telescopic fork. However, because most riders of 2-wheeled vehicles grew up only riding telescopic forks, they only know this feeling and nothing else. Thus, the inherent instability of a telescopic fork is the accepted normal.
Another drawback of the telescopic fork is their lack of a leverage ratio. Telescopic forks compress in a linear fashion in response to bumps. The wheel, spring, and damper all move together at the same rate because they are directly attached to each other. Because the fork compresses linearly, and because the spring and damper are connected directly to the wheel, the leverage ratio of wheel to damper and spring travel is a constant 1:1.
Yet another drawback of telescopic forks is that angle of attack stability and stiction increase and oppose one another. In other words, as angle of attack stability increases, stiction also increases, which is undesirable. This problem is caused by the rearward angle of the fork stantions. The less steeply (slacker) the fork stantions are angled, the better the angle of attack is in relation to oncoming bumps. However, because the fork angle is largely governed by the steering axis (head tube) angle of the cycle's frame the sliding stantions develop increased bushing load, and greater bending, resulting in increased stiction when slacker fork angles are used.
A further drawback of telescopic forks is called front suspension dive. When a rider applies the front brake, deceleration begins and the rider's weight transfers towards the front wheel, increasing load on the fork. As the telescopic front fork dives (or compresses) in response, the suspension stiffens, and traction reduces. This same load transfer phenomenon happens in most automobiles as well, but there is a distinction with a telescopic fork.
The undesirable braking reaction in a cycle telescopic fork is made up of two components, load transfer and braking squat. Load transfer, occurs when the rider's weight transfers forward during deceleration. That weight transfer causes an increased load on the front wheel, which compresses the front suspension. Braking squat is measured in the front suspension kinematics, and can have a positive, negative, or zero value. This value is independent of load transfer, and can have an additive or subtractive effect to the amount of fork dive present during braking. A positive value (known as pro-dive) forcibly compresses the front suspension when the brakes are applied, cumulative to the already present force from load transfer. A zero value has no braking reaction at all; the front suspension is free to respond naturally to the effects of load transfer (for better or worse). A negative value (known as anti-dive) counteracts the front suspension's tendency to dive by balancing out the force of load transfer with a counteracting force.
With a telescopic fork, the only possible braking squat reaction is positive. Any time that the front brake is applied, the rider's weight transfers forward, and additionally, the positive pro-dive braking squat reaction forcibly compresses the suspension. Effectively, this fools the front suspension into compressing farther than needed, which reduces available travel for bumps, increases spring force, and reduces traction.
The inherent disadvantages of telescopic forks are not going away. In fact, as technology has improved in cycling, the speeds and loads that riders are putting into modern cycles, bicycles, motorcycles, and mountain cycles only make the challenges for the telescopic fork greater.
Linkage front suspensions have been attempted in the past as an alternative to telescopic forks, yet they have failed to overcome the inherent disadvantages of telescopic forks. Past linkage front suspensions have also failed to achieve prolonged market acceptance due to issues including difficult fitment to frames, limited access to adjustments, the exposure of critical parts to the weather, accelerated wear characteristics, difficulty of maintenance, undesirable ride and handling characteristics, and undesirable aesthetics.
Linkage front suspensions of the past have used shock absorbers including dampers and springs. In shock absorber designs using a coil spring, normal practice is to attach a coil spring to the damper body, such that the coil spring is situated outboard and concentric to the damper. This outboard and concentric arrangement of the coil spring with relation to the damper is referred to as a concentric shock absorber or shock absorber having a concentric configuration, and forces compromises in suspension design. These compromises can include a necessarily large overall diameter of the shock absorber which results in a large size and difficult fitment, or can require extremely small diameter damper pistons which impart detrimental damper performance, or can require extremely large coil spring diameters which impart weight and performance penalties. Due to the necessarily large overall diameter of the concentric shock absorber, many linkage front suspensions of the past have been forced to mount the shock absorber external to the suspension, and exposed to the weather. These suspensions using external shock absorbers have an unrefined and undesirable aesthetic, along with the performance disadvantages that come with the external and concentric shock absorber arrangements.